I would think this would not sit very well with the providers. They've likely installed equip nearby to the hotel & conv.ctr in order to adequately handle the concentration of devices at that location. True? On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Michael O Holstein < michael.holstein@csuohio.edu> wrote:
legality is questionable insofar as "this device must not cause harmful interference" of PartB but how it works is by sending DEAUTH packets with spoofed MAC addresses "rouge AP" response on Cisco/Aruba works like this.
Regards,
Michael Holstein Cleveland State University ________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of David Hubbard < dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 4:06 PM To: NANOG Subject: Marriott wifi blocking
Saw this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/
The interesting part:
'A federal investigation of the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville found that Marriott employees had used "containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system" at the hotel to prevent people from accessing their own personal Wi-Fi networks.'
I'm aware of how the illegal wifi blocking devices work, but any idea what legal hardware they were using to effectively keep their own wifi available but render everyone else's inaccessible?
David
-- Greg Moberg, Director, NerveCenter Engineering LogMatrix, Inc | http://www.logmatrix.com/ | CommunityForum <http://community.logmatrix.com/LogMatrix/> | Blog <http://www.logmatrix.com/Blog> Telephone: +1 (800)892-3646 <http://www.logmatrix.com> <http://www.twitter.com/NerveCenter> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/logmatrix?trk=ppro_cprof> <https://www.facebook.com/Logmatrix?sk=page_insights> <http://www.youtube.com/user/logmatrixchannel>